‘Our overall mission is not to get any one person nominated. It’s to get judicial issues more into the marrow of Democratic activists…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Following in the footsteps of President Donald Trump—only backward—activist Democrat organizations have begun compiling their wish-list of future judicial nominees that will help advance a partisan agenda.
For some of the Left’s leading social engineers, that means fewer judges from corporate law firms and more from pro-bono advocacy outfits that value their own ideology over an impartial interpretation of law.
Ironically, noted The American Prospect, activists like Obama-era legal advisers Brian Fallon and Christopher Kang benefited from precisely the sort of cronyism and good-old-boy networking that they claim to be fighting against.
After launching their careers as leading staffers for high-profile Democrats including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, former Attorney General Eric Holder and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the pair went on to found the group Demand Justice, where they helped to orchestrate the “resistance” against Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court nomination.
Noting their backgrounds, the magazine said, “These are not résumé items you would typically associate with people who want to burn down the dominant frameworks for judicial nominations.”
But the two radicals claimed their effort to politicize the judiciary is a necessary quid-pro-quo since appointing lawyers who built their careers representing corporate clients “tilts the federal bench in favor of corporate interests.”
The two Demand Justice co-founders penned a piece in the far-left Atlantic that laid out their “provocative” proposal, Fallon said, in order to begin “socializing the concept” among the Left’s radical-progressive base.
Invoking the coded dog-whistle language of the Left, Fallon claimed that it was not an anti-capitalist agenda he was seeking to unleash on the judiciary; rather, it was in need of more “diversity.”
“[T]here’s a widespread recognition of the lack of professional diversity,” he said. “… We felt the need to get a little bit more intense about it, and put it in starker terms. If you want to put the onus on people to look at different types of nominees, you need to put firmer point on it.”
Yet, Fallon was also candid about his eventual goal of using the judiciary to force the Left’s socialist lurch into the mainstream by seeking the “AOC equivalent of a federal judge.”
He acknowledged that liberals from the Obama administration and earlier had succeeded in doing similar things for social causes like abortion, but said even the current left-leaning judicial philosophies remained too moderate.
“[T]he courts are a theater where this war is being contested and there’s no one on the battlefield,” he said. “It’s a place to advance the interests as well.”
Fallon urged Democrats to cull their nominees by consulting with groups—like the Open Market Institute—that are working to unseat centrist Democrats in districts where more radical representatives are needed.
Likewise their congressional counterparts who still value antiquated notions of bipartisan compromise, the traditional concept of jurisprudence that many judges base their decisions on is inadequate to enact the new world order envisioned by Demand Justice.
“Our overall mission is not to get any one person nominated,” Fallon said. “It’s to get judicial issues more into the marrow of Democratic activists. People must center the courts as a needed element of the movement’s activities and goals.”